Global warming causes trouble in Siberia

[Hatshepsut]

And there is no good reason to think the measures I cited won't mitigate climate change. As for too little too late argument, this debate has been going on for decades...

I'm all in favor of incremental change and against excessive cynicism. So, I'll don my Cardigan sweater, get out my favorite Jimmy Carter fireside chat, and wind the thermostat back to 65 degrees.

But I have to agree with Dennis that public policy remedies don't address the underlying causes and will have a very limited impact on whatever climate change lies in the cards. There's a difference between saying things might not be quite as bad as they would be otherwise given that correctives are implemented, and saying that things will improve. At best, the rate at which the climate situation deteriorates might be slowed a bit.

That's assuming unabated global warming and sea level rise are assured. I don't want to second-guess meteorologists who have real expertise in this area. But even they admit that human-driven changes are superimposed on natural climate cycles that operate regardless. If we turn out to be in for another cooling like the "little ice age" of 1400-1850, we might be thankful to have extra greenhouse gasses buffering it. I have no way of knowing. But I doubt experts know either; their record at long-term prediction isn't too good as of yet.

 

[Mudd]

We also like trucks a lot ...

Possibly because pickups are partially exempted from many of the fuel economy, emissions, and noise standards that apply to passenger cars. Another venerable bit of lobbying on Capitol Hill.

Yep.

CAFE has separate standards for "passenger cars" and "light trucks", despite the majority of "light trucks" actually being used as passenger cars. The market share of "light trucks" grew steadily from 9.7% in 1979 to 47% in 2001 and remained in 50% numbers up to 2011. [4] More than 500,000 vehicles in the 1999 model year exceeded the 8,500 lb (3,900 kg) GVWR cutoff and were thus omitted from CAFE calculations.[5] More recently, coverage of medium duty trucks has been added to the CAFE regulations starting in 2012, and heavy duty commercial trucks starting in 2014.

Also, emissions standards are manufacturer fleet standards. As long as GM produces an electric car it doesn't matter all that much how many they sell; it buys them some room to produce thirstier vehicles that people want.

 

[Hound of UIster]

You know what people in America do as soon as oil prices drop fifty cents or so? They trade in for bigger cars.

Americans had a tendancy to move things in their cars over distances. Small fuel efficent cars don't generally have capacity for such things...

Leading me to conclude that Americans' bodies are now so massive that only a Chevy Tahoe and up can move them, given the only thing I see most cars hauling is the driver.

Well there will only be +40% obese adult Americans in 2030. And since super obesity is an American superpower they will need all those SUVs to deal with it.

 

[Ithekro]

What I find a problem with most economic cars is that they are too small. They lack head and leg room for people much over six foot tall. Actually that seems to be the case for a lot of modern cars regardless of type. The general limit is for Six foot two inches tall. I'm running into more and more men that are taller than that by two to four inches.

 

[Hatshepsut]

The market share of "light trucks" grew steadily from 9.7% in 1979 to 47% in 2001 and remained in 50% numbers up to 2011...

I've been wondering why every other vehicle I see is a Ford F150 with a V-8 and fat tires on a jacked-up suspension. I'm tall and used to be able to see over car rooftops to assess traffic when crossing a street, but no longer. And forget about lookahead if you're in a passenger sardine can. It's sort of as if a food chain has emerged where only the bloke whose seat is 9 feet above grade has a chance.

Well there will only be +40% obese adult Americans in 2030...

Oddly, few mention that the BMI definition for obesity was changed back in 1998. The former BMI standards classified someone as "overweight" if BMI exceeded 27, and "obese" if over 32. But in 1998, these BMI limits were trimmed to 25 and 30 (See CNN post). Millions of people became overweight or obese overnight as a result. Not long afterward, the media began talking about an obesity epidemic.

 

[Mudd]

BMI also doesn't take into account body composition. The standards are, in fact, pretty much useless in the sense that they don't apply to any particular case.

 

[Mudd]

A summary from the EPA about human adaptation to continuing climate change.

 

[Kor]

BMI also doesn't take into account body composition. The standards are, in fact, pretty much useless in the sense that they don't apply to any particular case.

Yes. Somebody who is 6'2" and 250 lbs with a 30" waist has the same BMI as somebody who is 6'2" and 250 lbs with a 40" waist. But obviously they are at different fitness levels.

Kor

 

[Hatshepsut]

BMI also doesn't take into account body composition.

Or age. It's basically a height-weight table given as an equation. (Kor's example above shows this.) The health and life insurance companies used height-weight tables based on population percentile rankings: above the 95th percentile and below the 5th percentile were considered the dangerous extremes. Since population characteristics were changing (getting taller and heavier with new generations), health pundits wanted a single absolute standard that doesn't change, from which mass public prescriptions can be issued conveniently. Hence BMI. Oddly, the old insurance tables did allow for age, having separate adult tables in 10-year bands.

 

[Squiggy]

Who said they were? But how can we engage some of emerging nations in adopting ways to minimise climate change if we aren't prepared to adopt some of those measures ourselves?

As much as I'd like to see a greener automobile fleet in the US, the differences in the European and American markets are as much geographical as they are cultural.

Beside that Americans just like bigger cars, the United States has much greater distances to get from point A to point B. A couple of months ago I had the misfortune to spend 10 hours doing a 4 hour drive in my Chevy Volt and a snowstorm. It was very uncomfortable.

That's an extreme example, but 10 hours is Paris to Prague, which few people ever drive. It took me 10 hours to go from one state to a neighboring state.

Longer distances require bigger cars which require more powerful engines which (at this point) require lower standards.

 

[Mary Ann]

I'm going to throw a little niggle at you, Squiggy, in that what Europe lacks in distances it makes up for in narrow, winding, not-straight roads. There's often quite a difference between distance as the crow flies and distance as travelled by road, especially if you live in places like I do where there is no motorway in most directions.

 

[{ Emilia }]

I'm going to throw a little niggle at you, Squiggy, in that what Europe lacks in distances it makes up for in narrow, winding, not-straight roads. There's often quite a difference between distance as the crow flies and distance as travelled by road, especially if you live in places like I do where there is no motorway in most directions.

I don't think that's the norm, though. The European motorway network is very dense and you can usually get almost everywhere using those.
Europe is more urban, though. And driving crazy big cars in European cities would be a nightmare. I certainly wouldn't want to drive something like a Toyota Sequoia here.
American cars are decent for driving in straight lines for hundreds of kilometres but they don't do curves.
(I'm only partly joking. The suspension on the American cars I've had the "pleasure" of sitting in was really bad. The adaptive chassis control on my car is much more comfy.)

 

[MacLeod]

Who said they were? But how can we engage some of emerging nations in adopting ways to minimise climate change if we aren't prepared to adopt some of those measures ourselves?

As much as I'd like to see a greener automobile fleet in the US, the differences in the European and American markets are as much geographical as they are cultural.

Beside that Americans just like bigger cars, the United States has much greater distances to get from point A to point B. A couple of months ago I had the misfortune to spend 10 hours doing a 4 hour drive in my Chevy Volt and a snowstorm. It was very uncomfortable.

That's an extreme example, but 10 hours is Paris to Prague, which few people ever drive. It took me 10 hours to go from one state to a neighboring state.

Longer distances require bigger cars which require more powerful engines which (at this point) require lower standards.

Exactly it's an extreme example and as you said it would normally be a 4 hour drive but guess what we get snow in the EU as well and as everyone knows that can easily at least double journey times. Guess what it once took me over five hours to do a 2 hour drive (130 mile or so) within my own country because of snow. And of course it can be a 10 hour drive to drive from nation to another in the EU just depends where you are within that nation. For example parts of Scotland to France would be around a 10 hour drive.

And longer distances do not require a more powerful car, sure on a longer journey I would want a more comfortable car and yes they tend to be larger and as such have bigger engines. But a 1.8-2.2ltr would be more than adequate esp when you are talking the likes of C Class Merc, 3 series BMW, Ford Mondeo

Oh and I was quite comfortable in my medium sized 1.9ltr car on that drive in the snow I mentioned.

I suspect some of the differences are down to finances, i.e Fuel in the EU is what double of that in the US? In the UK the more emissions your car generates the higher yearly duty you have to pay for it. So there is an incentive for more efficent/cleaner cars. It's cheaper on the wallet.

Hyopthetically speaking if the US was paying EU amounts for fuel would there be a shift towards more efficent cars?

 

[{ Emilia }]

Right, I've often made the trip from Germany to Italy and back by car. That's around 1,100km for me and a very comfy ride in a non-gigantic car. I think it's just an excuse.
Size doesn't make a car more comfy unless you're 2.15m tall.
It's about chassis/suspension and seat quality.

 

[MacLeod]

Not to mention road quality.

 

[scotthm]

I think it's just an excuse.

What makes you think Americans need an excuse for what they drive?

---------------

 

[{ Emilia }]

I think it's just an excuse.

What makes you think Americans need an excuse for what they drive?

---------------

Apparently they're not comfortable saying "We just love huge cars and fuck the environment. Gas is cheap enough here and that's all I care about"?
I'm not saying they need an excuse. I'm saying they try to come up with other explanations that make little sense instead of just admitting it.

I think Dennis is pretty close to just saying how it is. People in America like big cars, that's all.

 

[Mudd]

Americans like big cars; we like overpowered cars. The notion that we're embarrassed by this is...mildly amusing.

Comfort is a very individual experience. You can feel the road in my SO's M3 is a joy to drive, but the Mercedes is like being in a cocoon and bores me to tears. The new Mustang has lost a little something with the IRS.

Generally speaking Squiggy is right about distances. It's one reason that electrics, cool as some of them are, will not revolutionize American transportation any time soon. Musk does not really appear to be on the verge of solving that one.

Personally, I just love huge cars and fuck the environment. Gas is cheap enough here and that's all I care about.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BZOcxQQC2M[/yt]

 

[RoJoHen]

I like cars that are big enough to haul furniture.

 

[Mudd]

I've driven across this country in a Toyota four-banger and the same in my Mustang. The Toyota was much more responsible, but just No.